The Cuneiform Collection of the Clinton Historical Society

§1. Introduction§1.1. The following six tablets belong to the
collection of the Clinton Historical Society of Clinton, MA.[1] A newspaper clipping from the Clinton Daily Item dated to July 2, 1913, says about the acquisition of the tablets that they “were purchased from Dr. Edgar J. Banks of Greenfield who has spent years in archaeological work in the east and who was present when they were uncovered so that their genuineness is undoubted.”[2] Banks directed a University of Chicago expedition to the site of Adab in the early 1900’s. However, as Foster (2006: 55) noted, “his reputation for acquiring and smuggling antiquities eventually aroused the Ottoman authorities, [and] his project was terminated.” Nevertheless, Banks “deal[t] in tablets and antiquities for the rest of this life, selling small collections of tablets with highly enthusiastic labels to schools, libraries, and seminars.” These tablets here are yet another such example of Banks’ legacy.[3]

§2.2a. The provenience of this tablet is suggested by the name La’amu, which is not an uncommon name at Umma. A steward (agrig) by that name is attested several times, e.g. SAT 2,
507 (Šulgi 46) and MVN 21,
410 (Amar-Suena 3 xiii).

§2.2b. This type of text is rare, noting only a quantity of animals and a personal name with no verb or action indicated. Likewise, no date or other information is provided. A similar example is Buffalo SNS11-2 144, 12. It is possible that these were small ‘chits’ serving to remind a scribe of a transaction to be recorded on a larger tablet at some future time.

§2.3a. Obv. 2) Gu’ugu’a appears as an foreman (ugula) in five other texts, all dated between Šu-Sin 2 and Ibbi-Sin 3 vii. In MCS 7,
21 AO 19544 (Šu-Sin 9), he appears as a foreman together with Kas as in this text. In BPOA 1,
84 (Ibbi-Sin 3 vii 22), he is the foremen of a work team involved with hoeing and cutting boxthorn in the Šarrahum field, almost certainly a variant writing for Šarrahuma.

§2.4a. Obv. 7 and rev. 4) The term šar2-ra-ab-du as a type of official occurs not infrequently at Umma and elsewhere in the Ur III corpus, but its exact meaning is unclear. The CAD, s.v. šarrabtû, notes that the function “may be connected with surveying fields and agricultural work.” In the Ur III period, this title seems to have been a function held only on a temporary basis.

§2.5a. This unusual text appears to list earth-work performed by various individuals. Most such documents provide other information such as the place where the work was performed, the wages of the workers, overseers or other officials, a date, and so on (e.g. BPOA 2,
2383 [Amar-Suena 9]).

§2.5b. Obv. 6) KU is clear in the text; one might still suggest a reading tug2!, though Lu-tugmah is only sparsely seen, and then only in texts from Girsu.

§2.5c. Obv. 8) Other attestations of this name make it uncertain whether the scribe intended it to be tu-gara2-aš as is seen here (cf. UTI 5,
3425:6 [Šu-Sin 3], where the copy clearly shows a gara2) or tu-ga-aš, as is more commonly attested (cf. SANTAG 7,
68 11 [Amar-Suena 3]). Alternatively, these could be two different but similar names.

§2.6a. This text lists newly harvested grain of domain land (še gibil GAN2-gu4) from five threshing floors (ki-su7) located in settlements in the Gu’edena and Mušbiana districts of Umma[4]: Ušgida (obv. i 1 to i 26), Gu’edena (obv. i 27 to ii 29), I-lugal (obv. ii 30 to rev. i 26), Sagdu (rev. i 27 to i 33), and Šunukuš (rev. ii 1 to ii 8). The entry for each location is similarly structured with subtotals divided into up to three distinct categories, gur zabar, gur še numun, and gur sa2-du11. The literal translation of gur zabar-ta is “from the bronze gur-measure,” but such a reading in this context makes little sense. For instance, in the sub-totals from the Gu’edena threshing floor, we find for gur zabar-ta (obv. ii 19-20):

But while the numbers properly add up there is nothing in the qualifications mu-ša, ma2-a si-ga nibruki-še3, or zi3-da to suggest any connection to the bronze gur-measure. Similarly, while the totals labeled sa2-du11 are made up of entries with that qualification, they also include entries with other qualifications, most often “wages for hired workers” (a2 lu2 hun-ga2). Only the summaries labeled še numun are composed entirely from entries qualified as such.

§2.6b. Obv. i 3) I-pa’e also appears in obv. ii 15 and rev. ii 3. According to Vanderroost (forthcoming), he is not among the several chief plot managers (nu-banda3 gu4) working in this district under Lu-Šulgira (cf. iv 23). It is unclear if this person is the same as the I-pa’e attested as a plot manager for the Da-Umma district. However, as Studevent-Hickman (2006: 34-35) has already shown, there is often an overlap of activities among the four Umma districts.

§2.6c. Obv. i 7) GuTAR was one of four chief plot managers for the Gu’edena and Mušbiana districts (Vanderroost forthcoming). He appears in this text again in rev. i 11 and ii 5.[5]

§2.6d. Obv. i 10) Like GuTAR, Ur-Enuna was one of the district’s chief plot managers under Lu-Šulgira. He appears again in rev. i 8 and ii 4.

§2.6e. Obv. i 28) Lu-dingira was another chief plot manager of this district. He appears again in rev. i 1 and rev. i 29. Each of his entries concerns grain loaded on a boat bound for Nippur (ma2-a si-ga nibruki-še3).

§2.6f. Rev. ii 21) The total here is correct. As noted in Englund (1991: 269 n. 20, with references), wheat (gig) was artificially converted into barley (še) at the rate of 2:1. Thus, the entry in rev. ii 16 counts as 6;1.2 and not 3;0.4 for the purpose of arriving at a total value.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dahl, Jacob

2007

The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma: A Prosopographical Analysis of a Provincial Elite Family 4000 Years Ago (Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East).